Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home  Phrase:code of civil procedure 1908 rule 1

Feb 19 1976

Kishan Lal Gupta Vs. Dujodwala Industries and Ors.

  • Decided on : 19-Feb-1976

Court : Delhi

Reported in : AIR1977Delhi19

..... of the courts in granting adjournments during a trial as is apparent from the bill to amend the civil procedure codecivil procedure codecivil procedure code which is pending in the parliament.5. it is important to remember that the general rule is that witnesses should be examined by the parties in open court and their evidence tested by cross- ..... issues on the matters at which the parties are found at variance (order xiv).3. the procedure for trying the case is laid down in order xvii, rule 1 of the code. it is in the following terms:'1. (1) the court may, if sufficient cause is shown, at any stage of the suit grant time ..... 1. issuing commissions for recording the statements of witnesses is not unusual in civil cases. it is being done ever since the code of civil procedure was enforced more than a hundred years ago. whenever a case for such examination is made out, parties are allowed to ..... not be forgotten that rendered by mr. s. l. bhatia.9.order xviii provides for the hearing of the suit and examination of witnesses. rule 1 provides for the circumstances under which the defendant will have the right to begin,failing which the right to begin,failing which the right to begin ..... of the law commission of india on 'reform of judicial administration (1958)' notes with concern the failure of the courts to appreciate that order xvii, rule 1 'contemplates the continued hearing of a case, once it has started, from day to day until it is finished'. the commission found that the judiciary seemed .....

Tag this Judgment!
May 13 2009

DVH Industries Vs. Hartley Knits and Ors.

  • Decided on : 13-May-2009

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 160(2009)DLT118; (2009)155PLR49

..... notification dated 21.4.1998 in the context of the provisions with which we are concerned, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:i. the following shall be inserted as rule 1(a) in order xvii of the code of civil procedure, 1908:rule 1(a) on the occurrence of an unanticipated holiday or in the event of the presiding officer of a court being absent owing to ..... could have been allowed. however, since the appellant/defendant no. 1 was not present at the hearing when the suit was originally dismissed, that is 20.9.2005, we are of the view that order ix rule 4 is the provision of the code of civil procedure, 1908 which stands attracted and not order ix rule 9 thereof as contended by learned counsel for the appellant. we ..... with simple interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum and costs of rupees 51,416/-.4. ia no. 1834/2006 under order ix rule 13 cpccpccpc was filed by the appellant on 15.1.2008 praying for recalling the ex parte judgment and decree dated 10.12.2007. this application has been supported by the affidavit of mr. hasmukh khatri ..... on which the dismissal of the suit occurred. if this was not the intention of the legislature, it would have mandated the issuance of a notice even under rule 4 of order ix. the cpccpccpc in order ix itself specifically postulates situations where some of the plaintiffs or defendants, as the case may be, are absent, and permits different treatment in that .....

Tag this Judgment!
Apr 11 1961

Ramchand Nihalchand Advani Vs. Anandlal Bapalal Kothari and Anr.

  • Decided on : 11-Apr-1961

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : AIR1962Guj21; (1961)GLR635; (1961)0GLR165

..... be found in other provisions already quoted earlier. the rules framed by the high court would therefore supersede the rules under the civil procedure codecivil procedure codecivil procedure code. rules of procedure in the matter of writs would, therefore, be govered by the special rules relating to writ petitions framed by the bombay high courtand not by order 1, rule 1 of (he code of civil procedure. rule i of these rules reads as follows: 'every application for the issue of ..... when deciding writ petitions.8. if high courts when deciding writ petitions are not courts of civil judicature for purposes of civil procedure codecivil procedure codecivil procedure code, then order 1 rule 1 of c. p. code would not apply to the procedure of writ petitions. section 141 c. p. code providesthat the procedure provided in that code as regards suits shall be followed as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in ..... the calcutta case, it has been held that order 1, civil procedure codecivil procedure codecivil procedure code, may be followed analogously. in the absence of special rules framed by the high court, the rules contained in order 1, rule 1, c. p. code, would apply in terms as already observed by us. we, therefore, hold that the rules under order 1, rule i, have been superseded by the special rules framed by the high court.13. it is also .....

Tag this Judgment!
Feb 22 2012

Premier Tissues India Ltd. Vs. Rolia Tissues Industries and Another

  • Decided on : 22-Feb-2012

Court : Delhi

..... to decide the following three applications:a) i.a. no.10846/2011 under order xxxix rules 1 and 2 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 filed by the plaintiff.b) i.a. no.12084/2011 under order xxxix rules 1 and 2 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 filed by the defendants.c) i.a. no.12085/2011 under order xxxix rule 4 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 filed by the defendants.3. the plaintiff ..... filed counter-claim against the plaintiff on account of prior user. the defendants have sought an injunction against the plaintiff and have filed the application under order xxxix, rules 1 and 2 cpccpccpc (being i.a. no.12084/2011).14. large number of documents have been filed by both parties along with their pleadings as well as during the course of hearing of ..... similar packaging, the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss and injury, which cannot be compensated in terms of money. therefore, plaintiffs application, being i.a. no.10846/2011 under order xxxix, rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 cpccpccpc, is allowed. the defendants, their dealers, retailers, servants, agents or any one acting for and on their behalf, are restrained from using ..... is tentative and prima facie view which shall have no bearing when the matter would be considered after the trial on merit.45. the applications filed by defendants, being i.a. no.12084/2011 under order xxxix rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 cpccpccpc and i.a. no. 12085/2011 under order xxxix rule 4 read with section 151 cpccpccpc, are dismissed.

Tag this Judgment!
Sep 03 2014

Diageo Brands B. v and Ors. Vs. Khoday Breweries Ltd & Ors

  • Decided on : 03-Sep-2014

Court : Delhi

..... * in the high court of delhi at new delhi pronounced on:03. d september, 2014 + i.a. no.16758/ 2010 (order xxxix rules 1 & 2 cpccpccpc and i.a. no.1908/ 2012 (order xxxix rules 1 & 2 cpccpccpc) in cs (os) no.2510/ 2010 diageo brands b. v and ors. through: ..... plaintiffs mr. c.m. lall, advocate with ms. nancy roy, advocate. versus khoday breweries ltd & ors through ..... following terms:(i) from either jointly or severally using or attempting to use or asserting any right to use ..... : hon'ble mr. justice g.p. mittal1 by virtue of this application under order xxxix rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (cpccpccpc), the plaintiffs seek an ad interim injunction in their favour and against the defendants in the ..... : ..... defendants mr. gopal jain, senior advocate with ms. padma priya, advocate for d-1 to d-15. coram .....

Tag this Judgment!
Oct 09 1936

Gurushiddappa Gurubasappa Bhusanur Vs. Gurushiddappa Chenavirappa Chet ...

  • Decided on : 09-Oct-1936

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1937Bom238; (1937)39BOMLR130

..... cases covered by order i, rule 8, but would include any litigation in which, apart from ..... the rule altogether, parties are entitled to represent interested persons other than themselves ..... varanakot narayanan namburi v. varanakot narayanan namburi i.l.r. (1880) mad. 328 where it was held that expln. v of section 13 of the old code, corresponding to expln. vi of section 11, civil procedure codecivil procedure codecivil procedure code, 1908, was not limited to the case of a suit under section 30, which now corresponds to order i, rule 8, of the present civil procedure codecivil procedure codecivil procedure code. explanation vi, therefore, is not confined to .....

Tag this Judgment!
May 06 2005

Bpl Communications Limited And Vs. Shri T.P.G. Nambiar, Electro

  • Decided on : 06-May-2005

Court : Company Law Board (CLB)

Reported in : (2006)132CompCas13

..... shoe specialities p. ltd. v. standard distilleries and breweires p. ltd. - (1997) vol. 90 cc 1 - to show that regulation 44 of the company law board regulations, 1991 saved the inherent power of the board and corresponded to section 151 of civil procedure codecivil procedure codecivil procedure code, 1908. under the inherent powers, the court could pass any order to prevent the abuse of process and also ..... respondent no. 21 till the pendency of the petition.7. shri anil b. divan, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 submitted: by virtue of the provisions of order 39, rule 4 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 where an order for injunction has been passed after hearing the parties, it cannot be modified unless such modification has been initiated by ..... ltd. - (2003) vol.115 cc 868 - to show that the provisions of the code of civil procedure, 1908 are strictly not applicable to the proceedings before the company law board, but recourse can be resorted to the underlying principles therein. order i, rule 10(2) of cpccpccpc confers power upon the court either to strike out or add a party to a proceeding to ..... relation to breach of the shareholders agreement. these respondents must be deleted from the array of parties in the company petition. the clb invoking the provisions of order i, rule 10 cpccpccpc is empowered to suo-motto delete these parties from the proceedings.the claim of the applicants for the interim reliefs as made out in their communication dated 01. .....

Tag this Judgment!
Aug 14 2014

Smt. Shakuntala Pandiya & Ors. Vs. Russel Estate Corporation & Ors.

  • Decided on : 14-Aug-2014

Court : Kolkata

..... dhanji vora & ors.v.the jupiter airways ltd.& ors.) was cited on behalf of the defendants for the proposition that, the instant suit was not under order i rule 1 or 8 of the code of civil procedure, 1908. referring to the facts scenario and the contention of the plaintiffs that, the court had understood the suit to be one for administration it was submitted on behalf ..... orders showed that the court was treating the suit as a suit for administration of the building and a suit filed in a representative character. permission under order i rule 8 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 need not be express. the orders of the court in the suit and the conduct of the parties led one to come to the irresistible inference that the ..... judgment and order dated august 7, 1992 appointed a retired judge of this hon ble court as a receiver with three-fold task enumerated in such order. order i rule 8 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 required permission of the court to institute or defend a suit under such provision and notice of such suit to all persons interested either by personal service, or ..... , his clients were ready and willing to discharge their obligations under the respective agreements. they were entitled to specific performance of their respective agreements. although leave under order i rule 8 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 was not applied for and obtained, the suit for all practical purposes was considered to be a representative suit. the court passed divers.orders on the basis of .....

Tag this Judgment!
Jul 22 1999

Goa Urban Co-operative Bank Limited Vs. Merces English High School, Me ...

  • Decided on : 22-Jul-1999

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1999Bom424; 2000(4)BomCR685

..... section 156 of the act. alternatively, the petitioner's case is that the said rules came into force on 26-1-1963 and section 60 of the code of civil procedure, as it stood then, could be applied and the ..... commission under section 13, may prefer an appeal to the apex court on one or more of the grounds specified in section 100 of the code of civil procedure, 1908. section 55 was enacted on 27-12-1969 being the date of coming into force of the act. section 100, c.p.c. as ..... recovery officer may, on receiving a report from the sale officer, order that the amount shall subject to the provisions of section 60 of the code of civil procedure, 1908, be withheld from such salary or allowances or wages either in one payment or by monthly instalments as the recovery officer may direct and upon ..... the award and the said rule 104(6) is without authority of law and, as such, null and void. the petitioner, therefore, seeks declaration that rule 104(6) of the said rules to the extent that it makes recovery subject to the provision of section 60 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 is ultra vires the ..... , c.p.c. has to be read with rule 104(6) as it stood on the date of coming into force of the said rules i.e. 26-1-1963, since section 60 stands incorporated in the said rules and any subsequent amendment to section 60 of code of civil procedure, would not affect the said incorporation. in support .....

Tag this Judgment!
Jun 30 2005

Linga Nagender Rao (died) by LRs. Vs. C.K. Yesovardhan

  • Decided on : 30-Jun-2005

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2005(5)ALD438

..... of attorney holder of the landlord but also the son of the deceased landlord. the apex court in janki vashdeo bhojwani's case (supra) while dealing with order 3 rules 1 and 2 of the civil procedure codecivil procedure codecivil procedure code 1908, held that the power of attorney holder has no power to depose in place and instead of principal and word 'acts' used in order 3 ..... rules 1 and 2 of code confines only in respect of acts done by power of attorney holder in exercise of power granted by instrument and if he has rendered some 'acts' in ..... any importance whatsoever. incidentally the learned counsel also pointed out that at present sri kanth, who was examined as pw-1, one of the sons of landlord is shown as sixth revision petitioner, hence the counsel would contend that the civil revision petition be allowed. 7. on the contrary, sri g.s. prakash rao, learned counsel representing the respondent-tenant ..... orderp.s. narayana, j. 1. heard sri s. ganesh rao, learned counsel, representing the revision petitioners who are the legal representatives of the original landlord linga nagender rao and sri g.s. prakash rao, learned counsel representing the respondent herein-tenant. 2. the present civil revision petition is filed, under section 22 of the a.p. buildings (lease rent and eviction) .....

Tag this Judgment!
Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //